Sunday, June 17, 2012

The Awesome Power Behind Evolution: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species

In his book Inside the Human Genome Evolution professor and National Academy of Science member John Avise continues with the usual evolutionary religious claims that the evil and inefficiency of biological designs—at the molecular level in this case—necessitate evolution, for such designs would never have been designed or created by a loving higher intelligence:

Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]

There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. It is a powerful argument for evolution, but its power comes from religion, not science. And that is the story of evolution. From the pre Darwin Enlightenment years to today, these metaphysical arguments have mandated an evolutionary narrative. But the science reveals monumental problems. What Darwin and the evolutionists have done is to manipulate the science to fit our religious requirements. Theology is, and always has been, the queen of the sciences.

CH: It is a powerful argument for evolution, but its power comes from religion, not science.

It's not a "powerful argument for evolution" at all.

It's not even an argument for evolution. It's merely an argument against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god. In other words, a restatement of the Problem of Evil given a tri-omni deity.

This non sequitur lies at the heart of your case against evolution, Cornelius.

It may well be that many theists were (and are) attracted to the theory of evolution because it seems to offer a solution to the PoE by showing that "evil" is simply the workings out of laws of the created universe, and that disease is no more "evil" than gravity, even though both can kill.

But the fact that scientific theory solves a theological problem is no reason to accept it, any more than the fact that it creates one (as Copernicus' did) is a reason to reject it.

The only criterion for accepting or rejecting a scientific theory is the goodness-of-fit to the data.

Evolutionary theory is constantly being fleshed out and modified, because that's how science proceeds - by fitting models to data, not data to models.

That is why it is widely accepted, not because it offers a neat solution to the PoE.

Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence.

Here we have alternative explanations for an observation. Avise claimed that the occurrence of deleterious mutations due to random errors in germline DNA replication is understandable mechanistically, independent of any theological notions.

Avise's challenge: Anyone who wishes to advance a theological explanation is welcome to do so. But that wouldn't be science, would it?

Actually, despite Dr. Avise's theological concerns for such a high level of detrimental mutations early in embryonic development, the fact is that such a high level of detrimental mutations early in embryonic development are very powerful 'scientific', not theological, evidence AGAINST neo-Darwinism:

Response to John Wise - October 2010Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

'No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution' –Jonathan Wells

Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

Although there are a few beneficial mutations to humans, which are all known to lose genetic information (Sickle cell, Lactase Persistence, Tibetan High Red Blood Cell Count), Avise himself points out that the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

In fact, to be more specific as to the 'scientific', not theological, problem this presents to neo-Darwinism,,,

We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutationsReproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. - Dr. John Sanford

Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk ExtinctionExcerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdfMENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINEhttp://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

Perhaps John Avise and other militant neo-Darwinists such as PZ Myers, who rail against what God should and shouldn't do, should concern themselves primarily with 'science' which crushes their own atheistic/materialistic hypothesis before they plunge full depth into deep Theological arguments on Theodicy to which they are ill equipped to handle?

In fact, to be more specific as to the 'scientific', not theological, problem this presents to neo-Darwinism,,,

Is that right?

We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutationsReproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. - Dr. John Sanford

Which sounds like the random mutation component of random mutation and natural selection to me. All evolution so far!

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk ExtinctionExcerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

In other words, according to evolutionary theory, species which are unable to keep their mutation rate below this limit will go extinct, leaving behind any organisms which are able to control that mutation rate. That's what we'd expect to find, yes? So researchers should be looking around for evidence of species which have mechanisms in place which limit the rate of mutations in their genome. I wonder if any such thing has been found?

Well, blow me down, yes it has! And would you believe it's CH that found it for us? Here's a juicy little quote he picked out of the paper:

Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations.

In other words, a prediction of the research CH cited in the OP would be that, if mutation rates need to be kept below a certain value, we should find evidence in existing species of some sort of control mechanism.

And that's just what was found in the research CH kindly provided in the previous post - a prediction made and fulfilled.

Ian, You live in fantasy land if you think that evolution designed the overlapping layers of sophisticated mutation protection we find in organisms. Shoot you can't even point to JUST ONE example of a molecular machine or functional protein arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes, much less such overlapping complexity as we find in mutation repair:

Contradiction in evolutionary theory - video - (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o

The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-darwinism-contradiction-of-repair-systems/

Repair mechanisms in DNA include:

A proofreading system that catches almost all errors A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system Photoreactivation (light repair) Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase Base excision repair Nucleotide excision repair Double-strand DNA break repair Recombination repair Error-prone bypass http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Scientists Decipher Missing Piece Of First-responder DNA Repair Machine - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The first-responder machine, a protein complex called Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 (or MRN for short), homes in on the gravest kind of breaks in which both strands of a DNA double helix are cut. It then stops the cell from dividing and launches an error-free DNA repair process called homologous recombination, which replaces defective genes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001164106.htm

A Look at the Quality Control System in the Protein Factory - JonathanM - March 2012 Excerpt: The DNA damage response (DDR) system is like a cellular special ops force. The moment such damage is detected, an intricate network of communication and recruitment launches into action. If the cellular process for making proteins were a factory, this would be the most advanced quality-control system ever designed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/a_look_at_the_q057791.html

Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm

Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.

NP-hard problemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard

Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation within the cell and/or within DNA;

The problem, Jared, is that 99 percent of what ba77 copies and pastes has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. He often copies press releases that blow some fairly mundane finding out of proportion.

Furthermore, he almost never understands the nature of the problem the researchers address. For example, the algorithm observed by the researchers in this study has nothing to do with the traveling salesman problem. The time to scan the genome is reduced not by optimizing the path of one "repairman" but by sending out 40 of them. Accordingly, that cuts down the amount of time from 13 hours to 20 minutes, i.e., by a factor of 40.

Despite oleq's attempted downplay on the breath-taking mutation repair mechanisms in DNA, I stated 'fixing every pothole in America was "analogous to" the traveling salesmen problem. which the problem certainly is. If oleq does not think the problem is analogous, I suggest that he write a computer program that will precisely coordinate 40 team members to fix every pothole in America instead of just directing one team to do it.,,, Indeed If oleq thinks information processing in the DNA is not orders of magnitude above anything man has ever devised in computers programs perhaps he can show me exactly where the following has ever been accomplished by man:3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm

Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. 2009Excerpt: At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289

Perhaps oleq, while he is searching around, would also like to point us to the paper that shows where man has accomplished anything like the massive amount of quantum entanglement we find in DNA:

Moreover oleq, in his attempted downplay of the enormity of the problem for neo-Darwinism, tried to imply that this 'fixing every pothole in America in 20 minutes' was easily solved by neo-Darwinism, yet despite oleq attempt at minimalization of the problem, the researchers themselves stated:

"How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,"

Guess we can put that unanswered question in with the unanswered question of finding even one functional protein by neo Darwinian processes:

Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA - February 2011Abstract: We model the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA as a chain of coupled quantum harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. Crucial parameters in our model are the distances between the acids and the coupling between them, which we estimate from numerical simulations [1]. We show that for realistic parameters nearest neighbour entanglement is present even at room temperature. We quantify the amount of entanglement in terms of negativity and single base von Neumann entropy. We find that the strength of the single base von Neumann entropy depends on the neighbouring sites, thus questioning the notion of treating single bases as logically independent units. We derive an analytical expression for the binding energy of the coupled chain in terms of entanglement and show the connection between entanglement and correlation energy, a quantity commonly used in quantum chemistry. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v2

Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - Sept. 2010Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford.http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/

and by direct observation here:

DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm

Hmmm, and yet oleq, who has a degree in physics, assured me that this was not possible for the 'big fat molecule' of DNA. What else is oleq mistaken on? Darwinism?

Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight - 2009Excerpt: The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html

Can Quantum Mechanics Play a Role in DNA Damage Detection? (Short answer; YES!) – video - as well at about 27 Minute mark in the video - Fröhlich Condensation and Quantum Consciousnesshttp://www.scivee.tv/node/25476

Besides DNA, it turns out that proteins exist as a 'single quantum state';

Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/

Further notes:

there is a mysterious 'higher dimensional' component to life:

The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form:

Y = Yo M^b,

where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/

Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for 'random' Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the invariant scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this 'four dimensional scaling' of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional 'expectation' for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an 'emergent' property of the 3-D material realm.

Again, you throw up a bunch of links. None of them is to a paper published in a scientific journal. You understand none of them. What is exactly your point? Can you summarize it? Do you even understand what quantum entanglement is? If I take a valence bond in a molecule, what is the degree of their entanglement?

Well oleq you said entanglement does not exist in DNA, and I presented a paper that was published by Cornell, and two tests that were published in Science (one for DNA and one for proteins) that says that entanglement is there. Yet these are not good enough for you? Sort of like the peer-reviewed papers of ID are not good enough for you huh oleq? Perhaps you should write the researches at the universities where the tests were conducted and try to stop this anti-Darwinian heresy from spreading!

You ask:

If I take a valence bond in a molecule, what is the degree of their entanglement?

I don't know.

you then ask:

"And what does the scaling of the body mass with size have to do with quantum entanglement,??"

oleq, perhaps you should watch the video I presented on 4-D scaling. 4-D scaling literally permeates every parameter that they have measured for life, including DNA! It is a VERY strong signature that there is some 'higher dimensional' component to life. i.e. I hold it to be a strong indication for higher dimensional 'information' in life.

You ask:

"Are you completely of your rocker?"

Well oleq, that's the funny thing, since you have no real substantiating evidence for Darwinism and all you got basically are arguments from authority and ad hominem, then many IDists would probably agree with you that I am completely off my rocker to try to reason with the unreasonable. But alas, hope is eternal! :)

Of related interest, around the 22:00 minute mark of the following video Seth Lloyd reflects on the very real possibility of learning from molecular biology how to build better quantum computers. (Biomimetics)

World Science Festival - Quantum Biology - And the hidden nature of nature - Panel Lecture - June 2012 - video(with guests Seth Lloyd; Paul Davies) Excerpt: Can the spooky world of quantum physics explain bird navigation, photosynthesis and even our delicate sense of smell? Clues are mounting that the rules governing the subatomic realm may play an unexpectedly pivotal role in the visible world. Leading thinkers in the emerging field of quantum biology explored the hidden hand of quantum physics on the scales of everyday life. http://worldsciencefestival.com/webcasts/quantum_biology

Ian, You live in fantasy land if you think that evolution designed the overlapping layers of sophisticated mutation protection we find in organisms. Shoot you can't even point to JUST ONE example of a molecular machine or functional protein arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes, much less such overlapping complexity as we find in mutation repair:

I agree, we do not have a step-by-step account of how these systems evolved - not yet, anyway - but neither does anyone else, including you. And as I will never tire of pointing out, saying "God do it" tells us who not the how you are asking evolution to provide.

The origin of such systems is still an unanswered question and, as such, it tells neither for nor against evolution.

Contradiction in evolutionary theory - video - (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o

Perhaps you didn't notice but my previous post pointed out that there is no contradiction, it is what we would expect based on evolutionary theory.

This is getting comical, ba77. You don't even know what quantum entanglement is. (Two electrons forming a chemical bond are indeed in an entangled quantum state: their wavefunction cannot be factorized into a product of wavefunctions of the individual electrons.) Yet you keep bringing it up as if it somehow proves something.

The preprint arXiv:1006.4053 was not "published by Cornell." Cornell University merely hosts one of the arXiv preprint servers, but the university in no way endorses the preprint posted there. As far as I can see, the manuscript in question has not been published anywhere.

Well regardless of what you may think, I have a pretty good idea what the basics of quantum entanglement are.

You state:

'Yet you keep bringing it (entanglement) up as if it somehow proves something. '

Hmmm entanglement seemed to be a pretty big deal to Einstein and Bohr decades ago, and even a bigger deal to Aspect and Zeilinger today, but apparently not to you when it comes to molecular biology. Go figure. But alas its not about science with Darwinists is it oleq?!? i.e. the religion of Darwinian Dogmatism raises its ugly head once again! Hmmm, which reminds me oleq How much junk DNA do you still believe in? 60% 70%? 80%? 90%? Please don't be shy, do tell. Feel free to equivocate that you never really meant junk DNA.

,,,In spite of your dissing of the Cornell paper, I find the paper to be extremely well researched. Here is the pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.4053v2.pdf

The paper is listed as a publication of the 'quantum non-equilibrium group'. A group which is funded by the Royal Society:

Here is the List of publicationshttps://sites.google.com/site/janetanders/publications

Here is the Homepagehttps://sites.google.com/site/janetanders/home

This is another paper by the authors, published around the same time as the paper you dissed, and it certainly shows that the researchers mean business with their research:

BA^77You are quite clueless about all things quantum. In the above exchange you are throwing around references to a quarter-power scaling law to "prove" the relevance of "higher dimensions". Sorry, but one quarter (1/4) does not mean the same thing as 4D (4 dimensional).This is the evidence from your C&P fugue state that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

David you say that 1/4 power scaling does not give us any indication (I never claimed 'proof') of 'higher dimensionality' in life, and yet, the two sources I cited previously stated:

The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biologyExcerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scalewith body size as power laws of the form:

Y = Yo M^b,

where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean scaling.http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf

of note

Euclidean geometry includes plane geometry and solid geometry of three dimensions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry

The second source I cited stated:

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/

I googled 1/4 power scaling - 4 dimension and hit these two right off the bat:

A general basis for quarter-power scaling in animals.Excerpt: Quarter-power scaling can arise even when there is no underlying fractality. The canonical "fourth dimension" in biological scaling relationshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724663

Well David you can hold that it doesn't give indication of 4 dimensionality if you want, but that certainly is not what my sources are saying. Indeed there seems to be quite a few ruffled feathers as to the fact that it does not scale to 1/3 instead. Go figure. Again I hold it to give strong indication of higher dimensional information in life! Moreover why would you contest something that is so easy to look up? Did you think I would take your word for it?

There is no point in embellishing Anders's credentials, ba77. You are not familiar with academia and you can't really tell who is who. Anders holds something of a senior postdoc position at UCL. Her web site shows that she supervises one and a half graduate students. She got a PhD three years ago. Her list of publication is OK, with papers published in good journals, including one in Physical Review Letters.

It's not that Anders et al. have done something wrong, ba77. Their preprint is not wrong but it is also not particularly interesting. I suspect that this why they have not yet managed to publish it yet, even though it was first put on the arXiv two years ago. They are having trouble finding a journal that would be interested.

Here is what they do. They compute the quantum entanglement of van-der-Waals bonds in a polymer. One can do a similar calculation for an oxygen molecule and find that it its electrons are entangled. (You will recall that I mentioned the entanglement of electrons in a chemical bond earlier.) The effect is not specific to DNA and can be found in any chemical with bonds.

The result has no bearing on the biological function of the DNA. At any rate, the authors do not point out any consequences except to say this: "Finally we showed that a single base contains information about its neighbour, questioning the notion of treating individual DNA bases as independent bits of information." There is nothing else.

And yet despite your concerted effort at downplaying this, the finding of quantum information/entanglement permeating the longitudinal axis of DNA gives indication of so much more. She, in her talk, certainly gives indication that it is a profound shift in understanding for molecular biology. moreover oleq, not to be insulting, but you simply, as a neo-Darwinist, have no credibility with me in this or any other matter. I've been lied to, cursed at, and insulted as a 'ignorant creationist', practically day in and day out for years by neo-Darwinists instead of honest investigation of evidence. I simply can't muster the trust anymore to trust anything any Darwinist ever says to me. Funny how being treated like dirt will make you distrust people. Go figure.

Funny how being treated like dirt will make you distrust people. Go figure.

Funny how being a rude jerk for years and interrupting countless conversations with massive posts full of C&Ped inane blithering on things you don't understand will eventually make even the most patient of people get tired of your rudeness. Go figure.

ba77: And yet despite your concerted effort at downplaying this, the finding of quantum information/entanglement permeating the longitudinal axis of DNA gives indication of so much more.

Can you summarize what "so much more" the findings of Anders et al. mean for biology, ba77? What are the profound implications that they (not you) offer? And why do these implications concern the DNA and not, say the hydrogen molecule whose electrons are definitely, and more strongly, entangled? Come on, stop using Ctrl+V, Ctrl+P for once and try to formulate your own thoughts.

oleq, in your downplaying of quantum entanglement/information in DNA and proteins, I hold that you are purposely trying to be evasive of the severe compromise this places on the materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism. For as you well know,,

Nonlocal "realistic" Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment - 2008 - Antoine Suarez Center for Quantum Philosophy,Excerpt: (page 3) "nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen."http://www.quantumphil.org/SuarezFOOP201R2.pdf

Exactly what is your materialistic explanation, from 'outside of space-time', that tells us exactly why non-local quantum entanglement is found inside of, on a massive scale, DNA and Proteins?

Moreover oleq, neo-Darwinists have a very long history of downplaying everything in biology to the point of calling it garbage. From what I can tell they, including you, do this solely for the purpose of saying 'God would not do it that way'. But once knowledge advances, in spite of the Darwinian rhetoric, far from being garbage we find that the complexity in life greatly exceeds our ability to comprehend it completely.

For instance, where you, in typical Darwinian fashion, claim that quantum information has nothing to do with biology, I hold that the quantum information in DNA is foundational to the following recent discovery:

The unexplained mystery as to why biological molecules are chiral, 'either left- are right-handed', has, in large part, to do with the 'controllable circularly polarized coherent light output' of biological molecules. In other words, the mysterious chirality of biological molecules turns out to allow biological molecules to communicate using 'biological laser light';

DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - March, 2011 Excerpt: "Biological molecules are quite large, and they work at temperatures that are much warmer than the temperatures at which most quantum physics experiments are conducted. One would expect that the quantum phenomenon of spin, which exists in two opposing states, would be scrambled in these molecules -- and thus irrelevant to their function."But biological molecules have another property: they are chiral. In other words, they exist in either "left-" or "right-handed" forms,,, Double-stranded DNA molecules are doubly chiral -- both in the arrangement of the individual strands and in the direction of the helices' twist. Naaman knew from previous studies that some chiral molecules can interact in different ways with the two different spins.,,, The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. These findings imply that the ability to pick and choose electrons with a particular spin stems from the chiral nature of the DNA molecule, which somehow "sets the preference" for the spin of electrons moving through it.In fact, says Naaman, DNA turns out to be a superb "spin filter," and the team's findings could have relevance for both biomedical research and the field of spintronics.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm

Spin Selectivity in Electron Transmission Through Self-Assembled Monolayers of Double-Stranded DNA - February 2011Excerpt: "The observed spin selectivity at room temperature was extremely high as compared with other known spin filters."http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/894

"circularly polarized coherent light output" is very interesting to note because it is found that,,,:

Cellular Communication through LightExcerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086

Biophotons - The Light In Our Cells - Marco Bischof - March 2005Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/Biophotons.pdf

The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php

Heh, off we go on another tangent. Ba77, can you stay focused on something for a short while?

I asked you a very specific question: what "so much more" do the findings of Anders et al. mean for biology? What profound implications do they offer? You won't tell. Instead you throw up another link to an unpublished paper that does not even mention biology and written by some dude in Switzerland who is neither a biologist nor a physicist. WTF?

By the way, ba77, "circularly polarized coherent light output" means light with classical (not quantum) properties. It can be easily obtained with the aid of 19th-century instruments such as a polarizer and a 1/4-wavelength plate.

Wow, deny I even pointed out that finding quantum non-locality in biology presents this problem:

"nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen."

Pretty slick move oleq. Just act completely ignorant. To bad the post is there for all to read and to see.

Prediction: oleq will deny quantum non-locality presents any problems for the 'within space-time', materialistic, theory of neo-Darwinism. i.e. Move along folks nothing to see here!

Moreover, a amazing purpose for chirality is found, all the way down to the quantum level of communication of light between biological molecules, which is simply a absolutely stunning finding that was not even dreamt of in the Darwinian framework. And what is the first response of atheist oleq? It was not, "Oh wow that's the reason why biological molecules are chiral",,, no, no, no, not for the atheist, that would be too much teleology for them to bear.,, no, the first response was to downplay as if it didn't mean anything at all. Yes everything is a kludged together piece of junk in Darwinian eyes (eyes which are junk of course!)

notes:

Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 - Robert Sheldon - May 2010Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn't imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/21/homochirality_and_darwin_part_2.thtml

Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon:Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm

You crack me up. Like a postmodernist humanity professor, you throw up a bunch of physics terms that you do not even understand and hope that it impresses someone!

Circularly polarized light is an old story. That it can be generated by a spin-polarized current is not a surprise because spins have a sense of rotation. (They're "spinning," duh.) This story, however, has nothing whatsoever to do chirality of biological molecules. Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

The "biophotons" story is pushed by some obscure physicists who don't even seem to be experimentalists. And what exactly are the physics credentials of Bruce L. Gordon?

Personally I think Hameroff, though 'not being a 'official physicist' in oleq's eyes, does a mighty fine job refuting the 'official physicists' who had challenged him in peer-review. Of related note:

Dr. Hameroff expands on the Rieper, Anders and Vedral paper here:

Is DNA a quantum computer? Excerpt: DNA could function as a quantum computers with superpositions of base pair dipoles acting as qubits. Entanglement among the qubits, necessary in quantum computation is accounted for through quantum coherence in the pi stack where the quantum information is shared,,,http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/dnaquantumcomputer1.htm

oleq, you deny that chirality has anything to do with biophotons (shoot you denied biophotons all together)? yet the paper stated that

"a particular spin stems from the chiral nature of the DNA molecule,,, In fact, says Naaman, DNA turns out to be a superb "spin filter," and the team's findings could have relevance for both biomedical research and the field of spintronics"

Better than spin filters in man-made devices which utilize spintronics for this,,,,,

Cellular Communication through LightExcerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086

And yet in typical Darwinian fashion you state:

This story, however, has nothing whatsoever to do chirality of biological molecules. Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

Thus oleq you are exposed as a liar once again. Prediction, oleq will deny any of this means anything once again.

ba77: oleq, you deny that chirality has anything to do with biophotons (shoot you denied biophotons all together)? yet the paper stated that

"a particular spin stems from the chiral nature of the DNA molecule,,, In fact, says Naaman, DNA turns out to be a superb "spin filter," and the team's findings could have relevance for both biomedical research and the field of spintronics"

ba77,

DNA is a chiral molecule. Its mirror image is not the same as itself. This is why it can act as a spin filter. You can use sugars to the same effect. In fact, you can do an experiment with polarized light passing through a bottle of Sprite. The light polarization rotates left or right, depending on whether it is Sprite with sugar or with aspartame.

It's all well known. None of that has anything to do with "biophotons." It's a spintronics paper. LOL

Further prediction, further study will find that the 'spin filters', of Chiral biological molecules, will be very close to the optimal allowed in physics for 'spin filters'. As well, communication considerations of 'biophotons' will be found to be a further 'design constraint' for why certain molecules have certain chirality.

Further prediction, if and when the preceding is found to be true oleq will deny this means anything.

note:

Physicists Finding Perfection… in Biology — June 1st, 2009 by Biologic StaffExcerpt: "biological processes tend to be optimal in cases where this can be tested."http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/06/01/physicists-finding-perfection-in-biology/

William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University:Excerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,,"http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html

"Organisms are not cobbled together as a series of adequate compromises but are close to optimality. Examples of supposedly “poor design” often turn out to be “very well engineered indeed”. Simon Conway Morrishttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/even-evolutionists-admit-its-mess.html

ba77: Further prediction, further study will find that the 'spin filters', of Chiral biological molecules, will be very close to the optimal allowed in physics for 'spin filters'.

Why don't you read the research article, ba77? You know, past the abstract. The answer is right there. The DNA spin filter had the efficiency of 60%. GaAs spin filters based on photoemission with circularly polarized light have a higher yield of 70 to 80%. There goes your prediction.

"In fact, says Naaman, DNA turns out to be a superb "spin filter,"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm

,,,Looked up GaAs spin filter and it is amazing where those things are used:

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) conducts experiments in high-energy physics to study thestructure of elementary particles. Recent experiments have required high-intensity, high-polarization electron beams.Advances in III-V semiconductors have led to photocathodes which produce beams with polarization in excess of 80%.http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-6987.pdf

Neat huh?

Found this to,

High spin-filter efficiency in a Co ferrite fabricated by a thermal oxidation Excerpt: Spin-filter efficiencies of 44% and 4.3% were confirmed,,http://apl.aip.org/applab/v96/i7/p072512_s1?isAuthorized=no

Thus at 60% the spin filter in DNA is doing much better than 'normal' high efficiency spin filters that are made by man, yet not as good as the most exotic high intensity one man has made. Seems very likely to be a Design constraint.

here is a reference that shows that polarized light does have a communication effect on life.

Single skin exposure to visible polarized light induces rapid modification of entire circulating blood: - 1998Excerpt: We have found that exposure of a small skin area (400 cm2) of healthy volunteers to visible (400 - 2000 nm) incoherent polarized (VIP) light (degree of polarization > 95%) in therapeutic doses (4.8 - 9.6 J/cm2) induces a rapid structural-functional modification of erythrocytes, leukocytes, and some plasma components in the whole circulating volume of blood.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1998SPIE.3569...90S

as well:

polarized light has shown the following effects:• The activation of ATP production (ATP is an important storage and energy transfer mechanism in the human body);• Increased support for the multiplication of collagen fibres;• The enhancement of important specific enzymes involved in cell regeneration;• Support for the lymphatic system for cellular regeneration;• Support for the development of new blood vessels;• Creation of a significant increase of DNA and protein synthesis within the cells of the body.

Thus, as usual, there is far more communication of information going on in the cell, (different forms of information communication on multiple overlapping levels!), than neo-Darwinists are willing to let on.

oleq, I'm aware of the weaknesses of the study I cited. But why do you think your opinion about the article, or me, is suppose to mean anything to me? Have you done anything to earn my respect thus far? No, blowing your own horn, and lying to me, makes me respect you less! Moreover, Exactly why am I to respect anything you have to say when you are so over the board hypocritical in your judgement as a Darwinist on evidence??? You sit here and pontificate as if you had the last word on the evidence and yet you believe all life on earth is the result of neo-Darwinian processes even though you can't produce the experimental evidence for even one single protein molecule evolving by purely material neo-Darwinian processes!,,, Everything in life is crap in your Darwinian worldview for crying out loud even though it is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than anything man could ever hope to devise!. For instance you, in typical Darwinian fashion denied Biophotons had any biological significance.

"The "biophotons" story is pushed by some obscure physicists who don't even seem to be experimentalists."

A normal person would have said 'wow, cells are talking to each other using light', not you though, You go on pontificating about how I 'have no clue' about the studies I'm going through. ,,, Of note, though you cannot produce evidence for even one functional protein arising by neo-Darwinian processes, I can produce experimental evidence of protein molecules emitting biophotons:

The mechanism and properties of bio-photon emission and absorption in protein molecules in living systems - May 2012Excerpt: From the energy spectra, it was determined that the protein molecules could both radiate and absorb bio-photons with wavelengths of <3 μm and 5–7 μm, consistent with the energy level transitions of the excitons.,,, http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v111/i9/p093519_s1?isAuthorized=no

As I have said many times, you don't have to trust me. Ask someone else knowledgeable about the subject, for you certainly are without a clue here. You truly do not even understand what the authors are saying.

In the latest post, you link to two articles about "biophotons" and you don't even notice that they are utterly inconsistent with each other. One of them is about infrared photons (wavelength of 3 to 7 microns), while the other about ultraviolet ones (less than 340 nanometers).

oleq, I did not claim that the frequencies were the same. In fact I hold there are a wide range of frequencies in the cell,,

Are humans really beings of light?Excerpt: A particularly gifted student talked him into another experiment.,, He also found that DNA could send out a wide range of frequencies, some of which seemed to be linked to certain functions.http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

,,, I merely sought to establish that cells were indeed communicating using biophotons in the one study, which they are. Thus refuting your claim that 'the biophoton story' is hogwash. And the other study I cited I merely sought to see if protein molecules themselves were actually emitting biophotons. Which they were, thus establishing that biophoton emission is embedded deeply into the molecular level of the cell. Again completely contrary to what you expected from your neo-Darwinian perspective! Yet you, instead of admitting that you are mistaken in the importance of biophoton emissions in and between the cells, as any honest person would do, attacked me personally. Well so be it. I'm satisfied with the evidence uncovered thus far and see nothing encouraging in it for your Darwinism. That's it for me now on this thread. Last ad hominem is all yours.

As well, despite whatever Dr. Avise may 'theologically' think about the detrimental mutations early in embryonic development, which 'scientifically' falsify neo-Darwinism, nonetheless the 'symphony' of embryonic development is nothing less than a audacious miracle to behold:

Comment from preceding video: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' - Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713

An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html

The (Electric) Face of a Frog - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI

A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html

as well:

The mouse is not enough - February 2011Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/

Another Key Evidence For Evolution is Getting Squashed - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012Excerpt: Confusion abounds and the evolutionists conclude, contra the traditional evolution view, that given the early embryo of an animal species, it would be possible to infer “comparatively little about its evolutionary trajectory.” That once powerful evidence that Darwin and the evolutionists proclaimed is now in the crowded dustbin of evolutionary proofs.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/another-key-evidence-for-evolution-is.html

So Ian, that's it? The Problem of evil is the powerful evidence against God in your book? Shoot I consider the 'problem of evil' to be the most powerful argument against atheism!

Atheists like to point to the Spanish inquisition and witch hunts, etc.. etc.. to try to say that atheism is better than Christianity. Yet atheists forget to 'look in the mirror' at the exponentially worse horror that was visited upon mankind in atheistic regimes: This following video is very clear as to pointing the extremely different 'degrees of evil' we are dealing with in atheistic and Christian cultures:

Since the historical data shows that both Christian and atheist regimes have committed atrocities we can infer certain things. First, it is not just atheism that can lead to atrocities being committed, religious belief can cause them as well. Second, religious belief does not necessarily prevent atrocities.

For me, however, the most important inference follows from asking what both types of regime have in common. As I see it, what you see in both cases is an absolute certainty of being in possession of some Ultimate Truth, be it religious or political. This certainty and the arrogance it spawns is what leads some people to feel justified in doing almost anything to promote it. In a way, it's an expression of the old truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I see something approaching that kind of certainty, yes, in some atheist groups but it is most apparent in extreme religious groups. The most obvious current examples are the Muslim suicide bombers but there are Christian groups that could be just as bad given half a chance. The record of anti-Semitism in Europe shows what Christianity was capable of then and there is no reason to think people have changed much since then.

Ian, the plain fact is that atheists, without a close second, are the absolute worse purveyors of unmitigated horror upon mankind. That you would so quickly try to downplay this undeniable fact is simply astonishing! ,,, For instance you try to dodge this undeniable fact of history by pointing to Muslim extremists, but, if you would have taken even a moment to reflect on this, you would soon remembered that the Islam Religion was established by conquest, not by martyrdom as Christianity was. Thus Islam is clearly of a completely different stripe of morality than Christianity is. Then you further, apparently without even a moments reflection, point to anti-semitism in Europe (might as well point to America as well for we have a sordid past in that area as well), but this anti-semitism was, for the most part, kept in check by overriding Christian morality which prevented murder that was prevalent in European society and antisemitism was only brought to full flame in the heyday of neo-Darwinian eugenics when the influence of Christianity had been severely weakened by Darwinian pseudo-science:

How Darwin's Theory Changed the WorldRejection of Judeo-Christian valuesExcerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.“The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm

Moreover Ian, although sin, evil, and death are still with us in modern cultures, the plain fact is that we have our most successful respite from the effects of evil in Christian cultures. Moreover since Christ most assuredly rose from the dead and defeated sin, evil, and death on the cross, then we have a promise, from Almighty God himself, who CANNOT lie, of a eternity with Him where evil will be no more.

Verse, Music, and video:

Revelation 21:4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turinhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit

Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanicshttps://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

Ian, the plain fact is that atheists, without a close second, are the absolute worse purveyors of unmitigated horror upon mankind. That you would so quickly try to downplay this undeniable fact is simply astonishing!

What "undeniable fact" are we talking about here?

What is undeniable is the regimes in Soviet Union, Communist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia were avowedly communist and incidentally atheist. The atrocities inflicted on the long-suffering peoples of those countries were done at the behest of the ruling party and in the name of their revolutionary ideologies. Few, if any, were done specifically in the name of atheism. You are stretching your argument to breaking point when you try to attribute those billions of deaths solely to atheism.

For instance you try to dodge this undeniable fact of history by pointing to Muslim extremists, but, if you would have taken even a moment to reflect on this, you would soon remembered that the Islam Religion was established by conquest, not by martyrdom as Christianity was.

Which era of Christianity are you talking about? The Old Testament is full of stories of lands conquered by the Israelites in the name of their God and apparently woth his full approval. I do not hear Christians today disavowing the OT accounts so I have to assume that they approve of such bloody conquests.

Then you further, apparently without even a moments reflection, point to anti-semitism in Europe (might as well point to America as well for we have a sordid past in that area as well), but this anti-semitism was, for the most part, kept in check by overriding Christian morality which prevented murder that was prevalent in European society and antisemitism was only brought to full flame in the heyday of neo-Darwinian eugenics when the influence of Christianity had been severely weakened by Darwinian pseudo-science:

Europe had a tradition of anti-Semitism running back at least a thousand years before Darwin published his theory. If you want a flavor of it, try looking up On the Jews and their Lies by Martin Luther, a Christian theologian and pivotal figure in the Protestant Reformation. Anti-Semitism was deeply embedded in European culture and the abuses were carried out by Christian states and with the approval of Christian churches.

In my view, Weikart is pursuing an anti-evolution agenda which makes his conclusions suspect. I think it would be possible to construct a much stronger case for showing that the Holocaust was firmly rooted in European anti-Semitism rather than Darwinian theory

Moreover Ian, although sin, evil, and death are still with us in modern cultures, the plain fact is that we have our most successful respite from the effects of evil in Christian cultures.

Yet we have studies which indicate that more secular societies in Europe are less violent and more humane than a Christian society like the United States.

Moreover since Christ most assuredly rose from the dead and defeated sin, evil, and death on the cross, then we have a promise, from Almighty God himself, who CANNOT lie, of a eternity with Him where evil will be no more.

Well Ian you are pursuing a Darwinian atheistic agenda so thus why should any of your conclusions be not suspect? Indeed why not extremely suspect? Last I heard Americans would by far rather have a Muslim or Gay for president than an atheists? You guys really have a ways to go on that whole trust issue!

I did not deny that Europe had a history of antisemitism, I merely pointed out that neo-Darwinism brought it to full flame. Why did you repeat your same misconception you were corrected on? Will that suddenly make the lie true for you?

Modern European states are not at war with Christianity as the purely atheistic regimes were, Indeed the governments and courts are still, for the most part, based on Judeo-Christian ethics. And though there is a deep move to secularization in the nations, I hold that they are 'running on the fumes' of their foundational Judeo-Christian heritage.

You also state in regards to Christ:

"I hope, for your sake, you're right but I very much doubt it."

Well unless you accept Christ as a propitiation for your sins, so that you may be able to stand before the infinitely holy and infinitely just God, I would think you would very much hope that I was wrong!

It 'might' be important for you to know: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's:

Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm

The Old Testament account of the conquest of Canaan says that the Canaanites were really bad people.

And Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews were happy to accept Jews as converts. The Inquisition was set up to find lapsed converts. The Nazi's, on the other hand, since their Anti-Semitism was raced based and genetic. wouldn't allow the possibility of converting.

Did I say I thought it was good? Anyway, war is @#!*% , people, even innocents get killed. And the point I was making about the Christian Anti-Semites is that they were better than the Nazis. At least they let Jews live if they converted

Nat, the conquest of palestine in the Bible isn't like the Viet Nam War and the My Lai massacre - 'mistakes were made'. God _commanded_ ethnic cleansing, including killing children. Its your Bible, read it.

Avise: This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence.

Jeff: What a pathetic false dichotomy. Once we rule out benevolent teleology, I can't even know if my thought "fits" (i.e., corresponds to) an actual external world, much less in a way that "fits" (i.e., corresponds to) an analogical/parsimonious interpretation of such a world. There is an infinite set of merely logical possibilities that contradict the blind faith atheist/agnostic/deist/process-theist interpretation of personal subjective experience. One divided by infinity is pretty much zero. Avise is clueless.

CH: There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. It is a powerful argument for evolution, but its power comes from religion, not science.

Again, if the qualifier "loving higher intelligence" does not narrow down God's actions in some specific way, then it's empty. It doesn't stick its neck out in a way that allows it to be criticized, in practice. We're left with a being that explains nothing, because it could do absolutely anything and everything.

Without a definition of "loving higher intelligence" this represents a mere logical possibility. And we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities in every field of science, every day. Why should you designer be any different?

So, the question is, how do you define "loving higher intelligence" if you do at all?

Perhaps you do not recognize that religious claims are ideas that would be subject to criticism? As such, whether or not a religious claim can be criticized is in of itself a religious claim?

Or perhaps you define "loving higher intelligence" as anything that is in agreement with depictions of the Christian God the Bible since: (i) Bible claims God is "loving higher intelligence", (ii) the Bible depicts God as having created this world and (iii) the Bible is the divine word of God. Therefore any criticism of the claim that an all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good God would or would not do anything depicted in the Bible represents criticism of whether the Bible is the divinely revealed word of God?

Again, show us your work. Connect the dots for us. Otherwise you're making assumptions that you haven't disclosed, which would be necessary to reach your conclusion.

Reading comprehension quiz - find the word 'evil' in the quote from Avise.

Correct, it isn't there. Our creationist blog host inserted it.

Creationists would like us to believe that the choices are either materialistic evolution or God. Avise is simply showing that if materialistic evolution isn't responsible for pain (not evil), then God is. And yes, it is difficult to reconcile a tri-omni deity with intended pain. As Michael Behe points out, God designed the malaria parasite to sicken and kill millions of children a year. He must also have designed sickle-cell anemia as a way of avoiding his vicious pet - though it kills and maims thousands in a completely different way.

The atheist, materialist evolutionist doesn't have a theodicy problem. Pain happens, and it is great that evidence based science and medicine can alleviate some of it. On the other hand, Behe shows that anyone wanting to advance a "Design-friendly" explanation of variation (within kind, for all you creationists) had better have the cojones to look pain and not turn away.

If the Bible said that God was cruel, then there wouldn't be a problem. Pain exist because God is cruel. So the problem of pain is does not contradict God existence. It on;y contradicts conventional theology.

Contradicting conventional theology is what got the Caananites and lapsed converts killed. So which is it, Nat? You approve of conventional theology because it justifies killing Caananites and Spanish Jews, or you approve of non-conventional theology because it solves the pain problem? (Of course, the God of this non-conventional theology is about as deserving of worship as Cthulhu...)

Pain exists because of mankind's rejection of God and His ways. Just as cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of GOD. When people stop following God's ways and instead follow their own selfish desires, sin and pain endure.

What got the Canaanites killed was the fact that they were really bad people. And I;m not sure that the Inquisition could be called conventional theology, when lots of people who adhere to various Abrahamic faiths would disagree with the Inquisitors.

All science so far! OK, National, so far the discussion has been that if material reasons didn't cause variation (genetic disorders), then the only other alternative is the omnipotent God. That at least was Avise's position in the quote supplied by our host.

Are you saying that human action is responsible for genetic mutations? What is the mechanism for that? Any evidence?

I do believe that the Bible says that they sacrificed children to Moloch.

And the Pope might have liked the Inquisition, but lots of theologians didn't.

I guess I wasn't clear. All the Abrahamic faiths hold that God is good, kind, merciful, etc. That is what I menat by conventional. Of course, they disagree onlots of other things, like the Inquisition.

A Hebrew became a slave when he voluntarily sold himself or when he committed and was sold by the courts to make restitution. He was treated humanely and released at the end of a seven year period with livestock provided by his master to make a fresh start. I think that Biblical slavery was a more humane criminal justice system than our modern practise of locking thieves in jail with hundreds of other criminals.

Anyway, since IMHO the science indicates that there was a creator, I'll go with conventional theology. And I don't know if the Creator likes pain, but rather it serves a purpose.